ArticleMicrobiome2015
Phylogenetic approaches to microbial community classification.
Article in Microbiome, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- From trees to graphs: rethinking phylogeny in microbiome prediction.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Deconvolving Phylogenetic Distance Mixtures.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Exploring and exploiting the rice phytobiome to tackle climate change challenges.Plant communications · 2024Review
- Overview of data preprocessing for machine learning applications in human microbiome research.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Machine learning and deep learning applications in microbiome research.ISME communications · 2022Review
- Using an Unsupervised Clustering Model to Detect the Early Spread of SARS-CoV-2 Worldwide.Genes · 2022Article
- Unsupervised clustering analysis of SARS-Cov-2 population structure reveals six major subtypes at early stage across the world.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2021Article
- Fecal Bacteria as Non-Invasive Biomarkers for Colorectal Adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Applications of Machine Learning in Human Microbiome Studies: A Review on Feature Selection, Biomarker Identification, Disease Prediction and Treatment.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
- Evaluation of variable selection methods for random forests and omics data sets.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Article
- A comparative study of the gut microbiota in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases-does a common dysbiosis exist?Microbiome · 2018Article
- Applications of random forest feature selection for fine-scale genetic population assignment.Evolutionary applications · 2018Article
- A Phylogeny-Regularized Sparse Regression Model for Predictive Modeling of Microbial Community Data.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Signature of Microbial Dysbiosis in Periodontitis.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2017Article
- Phylogenetic factorization of compositional data yields lineage-level associations in microbiome datasets.PeerJ · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe microbiota from different body sites are dominated by different major groups of microbes, but the variations within a body site such as the mouth can be more subtle. Accurate predictive models can serve as useful tools for distinguishing sub-sites and understanding key organisms and their roles and can highlight deviations from expected distributions of microbes. Good classification depends on choosing the right combination of classifier, feature representation, and learning model. Machine-learning procedures have been used in the past for supervised classification, but increased attention to feature representation and selection may produce better models and predictions.
resultsWe focused our attention on the classification of nine oral sites and dental plaque in particular, using data collected from the Human Microbiome Project. A key focus of our representations was the use of phylogenetic information, both as the basis for custom kernels and as a way to represent sets of microbes to the classifier. We also used the PICRUSt software, which draws on phylogenetic relationships to predict molecular functions and to generate additional features for the classifier. Custom kernels based on the UniFrac measure of community dissimilarity did not improve performance. However, feature representation was vital to classification accuracy, with microbial clade and function representations providing useful information to the classifier; combining the two types of features did not yield increased prediction accuracy. Many of the best-performing clades and functions had clear associations with oral microflora.
conclusionsThe classification of oral microbiota remains a challenging problem; our best accuracy on the plaque dataset was approximately 81 %. Perfect accuracy may be unattainable due to the close proximity of the sites and intra-individual variation. However, further exploration of the space of both classifiers and feature representations is likely to increase the accuracy of predictive models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.